Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Wednesday 02/28 A.M. Quickie:Summitt, Steroids, Santo and More

There are perhaps no more chilling pair of words ever written than these:

Summitt. Upskirt.

(Well, perhaps "Gators. Stink.")

I credit Pat Summitt for making her way out on the court at the first TV timeout, dressed as a Vols cheerleader (complete with... miniskirt). She led the cheers. She sang the song. It obviously helped the mood that Tennessee was beating the stink out of Florida.

But I'm sure you will all agree that it was a classic "There are some things you can't un-see" moment.

"Whether she was channeling Bruce Pearl or Minnie Pearl, Pat Summitt's antics before the Tennessee men's game on Tuesday was the least offensive aspect of the evening, as it turns out. When one considers that Dick Vitale was there, and that Peyton Manning was in the crowd singing, viewers should consider themselves lucky that the cameras focused mainly on Summitt."

I'd like to see how they perform on the neutral courts of the SEC and NCAA Tournaments, rather than in the hostile environment of Tennessee (or LSU... or Vandy), but some things worry me that transcend location: Like their awful defense. Or their terrible decision-making on offense.

I remain convinced that there isn't a better starting 5 in college basketball (and probably not a team with a better 6th man either), but if they don't get their heads screwed on right, they won't repeat as a Final Four team, let alone as champ. (But I'm not bailing: I'm still picking them to repeat.)

The other big stories of the day:

This steroid bust in Orlando is huge – and only going to get bigger. Who else figured there had to be a reason for Gary Matthews Jr's increased production? And boxers? Please. I'm just waiting for more names – and you KNOW all those folks who were busted are just dying to name names to save themselves.

Ron Santo denied... again. I'm in Chicago right now, and it's a big deal here. But maybe it's time he just withdrew and gave up. Maybe start his own "Sorta Hall of Fame." (Actually, that would be hilarious... and a huge success!)

Conference Championship Week: This is as close as the sport comes to my dream of an everyone-in-the-pool tournament. Even the worst team in a conference can make the Big Dance. I love that. And I have no sympathy for regular-season conference champs who poop the bed when it really matters and miss out on an NCAA Tournament bid.

More College Hoops: Is Michigan REALLY an NCAA Tournament team? I don't know much, but I know that if they are, I'm penciling in whoever they play as advancing out of that particular bracket matchup.

Pitt is worth adding to the "I have no idea how they'll do in the Tournament" list.

Thad Matta's YouTube Moment: You know a story is at the end of its life cycle when it finally makes the TV Sports column of USA Today. Credit sports bloggers (like MJD at Deadspin and Fanhouse) for being all over this first, on Sunday night, before it bubbled into mainstream media (ATH, PTI) and finally, three days later, to newspaper coverage.

Cards like Clemens? That's just fantastic. Which team WOULDN'T want him? The difference is that Clemens has expressed no interest in playing for the Cards. What a non-story!

How much is Ryan Howard worth? If Ryan Howard was on the open market, how much would he command? $10 million a year? $15 million? More? Consider his mammoth marketing appeal as the TRUE "Face of Baseball" -- and the sport's reigning Slugger-King. The Phillies better understand that.

NBA: Typical Knicks – just when things were looking even remotely better, they fall apart. How does a team go from too many shoot-first point guards to too few?

Mavs win 13th straight: Much like a regular-season conference champ from a smaller college conference, this doesn't mean anything if the Mavs don't win the NBA title.

PGA: I love that Tiger Woods is simply creating his own event, using his own foundation's money. In my hometown of D.C. Over July 4 weekend, no less. Because Tiger is literally supporting it, I expect it will be a big deal.

NFL: I love how even Pac-Man Jones' own family says he's "out of control." When your family is talking shit about you, you've crossed a line.

Finally: This is totally crass, but I am anticipating it becoming one of the biggest online-sports sensations of the spring: The "Would You Do?" Tournament.

Florida can't even get opposing teams to rush the court against them anymore...just kidding, that's a nice amount of class shown by the Tennessee students and kudos to the security guards at "The Summit" for not letting the school get embarassed.

Also, I didn't realize Tennessee was undefeated at home...that's not half bad, even in a weakened SEC that's impressive.

I like the way Lofton plays and he's the kind of guy that can carry a 5 seeded Vols team into the Elite Eight if he gets hot from the outside

I thought the Pat Summitt thing was hysterical. Now if we could only get Coach K shirtless in support of coach G.

Way better than here in CT, where it seems Auriemma and Calhoun hate each other!

Oh, and speaking of the Big East....not every team makes its conference tournament. Cincinnati, for instance, is DONE.

I remember a few years ago, Dartmouth had the longest win streak in the nation....they were 6-0 and had finished the year before with 4 straight wins, but of course, no Ivy tournament. The defending NIT and NCAA champs had already lost the following season, and so they actually had a 10-game winning streak in early December, only to get beat by North Carolina.

I'll put in the obligatory 2 cents (Canadian) and mention a shout to Mark Messier, getting his number retired in Edmonton last night.

If Ryan Howard has an agent that is at all good, he should be the highest paid 1st baseman in the league. His stats are comparable to Pujols who doesn't have that great of a deal, but he should get Helton/Giambi type money.

brian in oxford: I don't think it's that Calhoun doesn't like Geno, no one likes Geno. I root against the women's team at UConn (I'm an alum) just because I think Geno is the biggest D-Bag in the state (possibly New England, Jon Kerry a close second!)

Hmm... I guess I'm just weird, but whereas I was completely dispairing after the debacle against LSU, last night's game actually gives me some hope. Apparently getting whooped on by LSU wasn't enough to embarrass the Gators into righting the ship, but I think the 27-point deficit last night lit a fire. The Gators finally (and for the first time since the second half of the Alabama game a few weeks ago) showed some life and spark in the second half.

The way the Gators are playing now, there's no way they win more than one NCAA tourney game, if that. But I also thing there's no way they keep playing like this, not for much longer. We'll on Sunday when Kentucky comes to town. And Gary, UF is undefeated at home also, but of course you should expect at least that from this Gators team.

Big D: I don't think there's any questioning UCLA as a 1 seed. Right now, they look like they're gonna get #1 overall. In my opinion, the other three right now are Ohio State, Wisconsin, and UNC. Kansas is right there with them, should Wisco or UNC falter.

Big D: Not that I agree with this, but there is no way that So. Ill gets a 1 seed, they'll be lucky with a 4 seed. Look how long it took Gonzaga to get seeding respect. They went like 29-2 one year and only ended up with a 5 or 6 seed..IIRC.

I wouldn't be surprised if the committee tries to knock the mid-majors down a peg by setting up tough first round matchups for the power mid majors, like Nevada, So. Ill, Butler, Air Force etc. Giving them the Michigan States of the world, Vandy, Boston College etc in first round matchups to try and get as many eliminated as soon as possible.

There are going to be a lot of 7-12 seeds from major conferences this year, and they could be matched up with mid majors for very interesting first round games...I'm starting to get giddy. Selection Sunday is by far my favorite day of the year, Christmas be damned (no offense Jesus)

although so ill might deserve a 1 (debatable) they will not get one, i'm sorry but it won't happen.

I watched the game last night and florida seemed like it wasn't that they were hustling they wren;t even going through the motions, there was some point in the second half where they tried to pound it in to noah and like 4 straight passes were stolen thats just lazy.

As for the steroid bust, I just pray UF's football team doesn't get their steroids from Orlando. That would ruin the mood in G'ville a little bit.

@daddy, he also doesn't mention much about the WNBA or World's Strongest Man competitions. Hockey is definitely a sport, and a pretty good one, but it's popularity right now in this country is probably barely above soccer.

Gary, I'm not sure the committee is out to get mid-majors, but if UNLV, Nevada, Memphis, or So-Ill draws any of those three teams you mentioned, they'll be advancing to the second round (especially whoever gets BC).

Gary, I agree with that. Butler (only won 3 of last 5 meaningful games) and Air Force are both looking to me like they're primed for the first round shellackings by Vandy and their ilk.

Air Force had just been awful for the last few games. Though I've mentioned it a few times in these comments threads for the last few months, I think UNLV is the class of the Mountain West and the team to watch outside of the big 6 conferences.

Dan, someone really needs to explain this whole arbitration process in baseball to you, because I think you don't get it. Actually, you don't get it.

Once a player is drafted/signed by a team, the team has the exclusive rights to the player for their first six years of major league service time. For the first 3 years of service time, the team is only obligated to pay said player the rookie/league minimum, and for the next 3 years they are only obligated to pay said player their value as determined by an arbitration hearing (or an out of arb settlement). Players who are arbitration eligible pretty much never get their "value on the open market" as you like to claim.

Therefore the assertions of Mauer/Morneau/Howard (pending) signing for lower than their "market value" is irrelevant, since they are absolutely not free agents. It would make no sense for a team to sign players who are under their control for competitive "open market" salaries, since it isn't an open market.

The comparison of Santo to Dale Murphy/Dawson is fairly irrelevant. The argument in support of Santo has everything to do with the position scarcity of 3B, as the fact is that there aren't really many great 3B in the history of baseball, and that Santo is arguably one of the 10-12 best in baseball history at that position.

I'd argue the same is true for Trammel as well. (I also like Dale Murphy a lot, but am unsure about his Hall credentials).

Jon: Seriously, the CAA needs 2 bids this year, preferably some mix of ODU, VCU, and Drexel. Though the conference isn't as solid as it was last year from top to bottom, it's good enough at the top to merit 2 bids.

Typical of you, Shanoff, to diss the Mavs and their streak but go ape-shit over Phoenix when they're on a run. When Phoenix actually beats someone good in the West then you can go ape-shit...but not until.

Selection Sunday is good, until Dick Vitale cries when Notre Dame is sent to the NIT in most years. Maybe I'll set up a road block from the airport to Bristol (I live in Oxford, Gary....sorry to hide the obviousness of it) to keep him off the air after doing the ACC championship.

The hard part is when you run the bracket pool....everyone just naturally comes to talk about the games to you, and then it's late Wednesday and you're like, oh crap, I still have to make my own picks! The fun part is listening to all the blowhards tell us who's going to win what. And of course they're all always wrong.

Todd Ching- you have a good point. However, Santo's whining and posturing on the topic probably isn't helping him get votes, IMO at least.

Personally I think its a travesty that guys like Nellie Fox had to wait forever to get in while guys like Buck O'Neil, Andre Dawson, and Minnie Minoso still haven't gotten in. Meanwhile a wife of an owner got in to the Hall. It should now be considered almost a big a joke as the NFL hall of fame.

Here I go again, sticking up for the NHL. One of the the reasons the Ryan Smyth deal is bigger news than the WNBA etc. is because we are talking a 5 year/$25-30 million deal. I don't see those other fringe sports throwing around those figures. Even Beckham's playing contract is 5 years/$27.5 million.

Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that regional NHL broadcasts on NBC beat Men's CBB in the ratings.

The reason (as I understand it) that Buck O'Neil didn't get elected to the Hall was that the committee appointed to do that vote determined to evaluate Buck exclusively as a player, and not as an "ambassador". So taking that into account, it's understandable how he didn't get in based on his playing credentials (compared to some of the other Negro League players like Mule Suttles, etc).

What they need to do (and I think this idea originated from Neyer or a Neyer chat), is to have some kind of baseball lifetime achievement award, name it after Buck, and give it to people who have served the game so well, like Marvin Miller, Minnie Minoso, Bill James, etc. who probably wouldn't make it in for other reasons.

Todd Ching: I do not. In fact, I was cheering on Florida football in the national title game. I have enough friends there that any faux-homerism can be overruled. That said, it annoys the hell out of me that he cheers on the Gators and not his Wildcats. We all know Northwestern sucks ass, but he has to have some pride for where he actually went. If my girlfriend went to UCLA, I'd still cheer on my GW Colonials.

florida should be a 3 or 4 seed at best (i would drop them to a 5 personnally unless they make a huge run at the SEC title). They have one win against a top 25 team (granted it was OSU). When one of your key wins is providence and you lose three of four down the stretch how can they possibly be up for a two seed?

Adopting a team "just" because of a significant other is the lamest reason ever to watch a team.

But my wife went to the University of Virginia, and we have Virginia football season tickets. I am a huge UVa fan, not because of my wife, but because of the great group we go to games with and how much fun I have there. I will always like tOSU better, but it's good to have a hometown rooting interest.

If Dan is a UF fan just because of his wife, that would be the lamest thing ever. If he's a UF fan because he lives in FL now, is immersed in the culture, and actually goes to see games, then it's a justifiable explanation.

I grew up a Cubs fan. I will always be a Cubs fan. But I have Nationals season tickets, so I am also a huge Nats fan because I immersed myself in the culture as soon as they moved here!

natsfan- I just knew you were a Cubs fan the instant you claimed that rooting for a significant other's team is crap but jumping on a bandwagon is ok, which is exactly what you have done. Shanoff can root for whoever he wants to. When I was dating my ex, I rooted for IU basketball (as an SIU alumni) because she was a superfan of the team.

BTW, my wife is an alum of Maryland and I graduated from Penn State. Even though the PSU basketball program sucks (like Dan's alma mater Northwestern) I still root for them and don't adopt my wife's Terrapins because they are a tournament team almost every year. That is pathetic and lame. If you grow up or live in an area close to a university, or are alum of the school, I can see you being a fan of that school. However, just to become an annoying homer (and make ridiculous statements about the teams) of a university because your wife roots for them leaves you open to be ridiculed. I didn't really like or dislike the Gators until Dan became such an apologist for them. Now, I root against them each and every chance I get. Maybe that is a bad reason to root against the Florida, but it doesn't seem like it to me.

Dan Mega, I don't know what part of my previous statement said it's ok to jump on a bandwagon. Did you ever go to an IU game? Ever be around more IU alum than just your gf? I go to a lot of UVa sporting events, as well as about 120 Nats games over the past 2 years.

My entire High School went to SIU (except for me) and my parents have b-ball tickets there. But I don't root for SIU because I am not immersed in that culture. How did you feel when IU crushed SIU this year?

Heck, when I lived in Hawaii, I had UH Season Tickets and became a big 'Bows (Warriors) fan. It's all about being there and being a part of it, not jumping on a bandwagon.

"Dan Mega, I don't know what part of my previous statement said it's ok to jump on a bandwagon."

You move to an area then immediately start liking a team when you got there as a transient with no connection to it. What do you call it?

"Did you ever go to an IU game? Ever be around more IU alum than just your gf?"

Over 30 and yes.

"How did you feel when IU crushed SIU this year?"

I shrugged.

But seriously, if you're going to lambast someone for rooting for a significant other's team, you better be ready to take some heat because there is nothing wrong with it. You might as well criticize guys for liking a team because their dad did.

My husband and I are both Ohio State fans. Born and bred in Ohio. We both went to different colleges, but always remain a true Buckeye fan, even when they suck and/or don't show up for the NC game in January.

I grew up rooting for URI hoops...1998 was like euphoria for me! URI didn't have a D-I Football team so I adopted a couple of teams at random that were on TV alot and had players I like...enter Penn State and Florida!

I went to UConn, now I am a rabid Huskies fan in all sports, espically football where I have season tickets and attended their bowl game in 2004.

I still root for URI and go to a few game a year because I still like them. If URI and UConn played in basketball, I'd be torn, but UConn would get my rooting because they had 4 great years of my life.

But why does attending a school (presumably based on academics) force one to root for that school in sports. I'm sure that since we are all such rabid sports fans, wherever we went to school we enjoyed the sports at the school and became fans. But what if you hated the teams, but it was your state school and the only one you were accepted to or something? Does that force you to be a fan?

I know this is a bad example, but I hate Notre Dame football, I always have, I think because I disliked Lou Holtz...now if for some reason Notre Dame was my safety school and my state school and the only one I got accepted to, I don't know if I would be able start rooting for their football team just because I was taking classes there. I probably would end up rooting for the Irish...but just thinking of that now makes me cringe!

And now, as promised, HOW TO FIX THE NCAA TOURNEY.When I complain about the tourney I have a few complaints.

1. Teams that COULD make a run don't make the tourney. Example: 2005. In a year with a very small bubble, the final spot is a straight up showdown between Northern Iowa and Maryland. Eventhough Maryland had beaten Duke (#1) TWICE that season, the committee gives the nod to Northern Iowa who promptly bows out in the first round.

2. Conference tournaments don't have the same meaning that they used to. Example: 2003. Arizona is the #1 seed in the Pac-10 tourney and is playing #8 seed UCLA in the first round. The Wildcats had won their two meetings against the Bruins by a combined 71 points. Needless to say they mailed it in. Lute Olsen made some interesting personel moves during the game and rested his guys. After the game one of the Arizona players actually said, "We have next week to accomplish our goal, which is to win it all." Arizona was still awarded a #1 by the committee and went to the Elite 8.

3. Teams that are seeded 1-12 are (or are supposed to be) the top 48 teams in the country, while the last 17 teams are much farther behind. Example: 2006 (could be any year though). Our 13 seeds were 2 at-large's (Bradley and Air Force) and 2 conference champs (Pacific and Iona). Bradely went on to the sweet 16. This happens very often. Same thing as George Mason. The gap between the last at-large team and the low seeds is annoying. The difference between a 12 and a 14 is staggering whereas the difference between 2-4 is sometimes debateable.

To fix these 3 problems I created a new tourney that I will release soon.

As you may have assumed this will include 32 first round byes. While you can easily find 96 teams that are good (just add the 32 teams from the NIT), how does this solve the question of how to fix the newfound insignificance of the conference tourney?

Because those 32 first round byes don't go to the top 32 teams. They go to the 32 conference champs. There are currently 31 conferences and a bunch of independents that can get their own tourney for a bid. Do you think Lute Olsen would risk the embarrassment of going out to some team ranked 93rd in the country. Every team would be killing themselves to get a first round bye like that.

So, in essence, what you are saying is that the winner of say, the Patriot league tournament title deserves a bye in the first round over say, the runner up of the ACC tournament? Or, what happens if a sub-.500 team gets hot and wins its conference tournament (I think there was a sub-.500 team last year, seeded 16th obviously)? They deserve a bye over any number of teams that are ranked higher but don't win the conference tournament?

I like it as is. I don't need any more teams in the tournament. Sure, there are always a few teams that say they "deserve" to be in the big dance, but if you truly deserve it, you would win more games in the season (or the conference tournament). These teams usually end up in the NIT and bow out anyway, nullifying their claim to make the NCAA tournament. It's fine as is, says I.

You can't re-seed...that would make no sense and take away all of the fun of office pools.

Besides that, there is absolutely no reason to have 64 at-large teams. There aren't that many good teams and you'd have at least a dozen teams under .500 in conference play making the field, and that (at least to me) is completely unacceptable.

So if we look at last year's top 24 NIT teams (1-6 in each bracket), we have a ton of teams from major conferences that grossly underachieved and a handful of mid-majors that really did nothing all season.

It's a good idea in theory but when you take the time to look at it, it makes little sense. Plus I'm sure everyone would be thrilled when Delaware State (or North Dakota State) got a bye to the second round while the teams that are clearly head and shoulders above them that finished in second (like, say, the Big XII runner-up) would be thrilled at the prospect of going out early.

Plus, I don't like the idea of 11 teams from the Big East making the tournament because you're not going to get a ton of mid-majors from the pool of at larges.

If the Mavericks current domination "doesn't mean anything", why even mention ANY regular season basketball ever? As a Mavericks fan, it perplexes me that you dismiss their accomplishments so casually.

And as a Gary Matthews, Jr. fan, I'm disappointed that he's going to be abused in the press over the next few weeks. In spite of what he may or may not have done chemically, he's a genuine good guy.

So the 8 seed in a region is for instance the TAAC champ....worst automatic qualifier. They get the 9-24 winner, where the 9 is the best non-automatic....like a Wisconsin that might get picked off in its tourney.

Problem then, is that the 9 beats the 8 (Wisconsin over some hyphenated monstrosity), too, and its next game is against the 1 in the region, assuming they beat the 16/17 winner.

That's not a good deal, especially if you don't re-seed. You'd have Wisc-OhioSt just to get to the sweet sixteen. Maybe not those exact teams, but that level of quality between the teams, forced to play earlier than they should.

I see your point there. Props. No one has ever presented me with that arguement before. Maybe we can fox this somehow.

Jason-

Your arguement doesn't make much sense. First of all, the worst team that would have made it last year would have been Butler. Delaware State would've been like 10 spots out. Second, it's unfair that a conference champ got a bye like the D1 Indy Champ like Utah Valley State over Wisconsin? More unfair than Oakland getting in that year when they were like 12-18 cause they won their conference and teams like Maryland who beat a #1 seed twice in the regular season STAYING HOME? You've got to be kidding.

Maybe you only give a bye to the top 16 conference winners? Something like that. Brian, help me out here.

I used to live and work in Middlebury, CT. Nice area. Some of my local bicycle routes used to pass right by the Oxford Airport when I was looking for a slightly flatter route.

Iona graduated a lot of players and had several injuries causing them to start 5 freshmen.

I would like to see the top 32 teams placed in a tournament with 4 team round robin brackets for the first week. However they eliminates the excitement of single elimination games and also hurts the office pools so I am happy with the current 64/65 team format. I certainly don't think it should be 96 teams.

No team excluded from the top 65 and not their conf. champ has any claim to being the best team in the country.

What is the lowest seeded team to win it all since they went to 64 teams?

Anyone listening to WEEI this afternoon (The Big Show)? They are having quite a time ripping the hell out of "the evil blogs" that are crucifying Cedric Maxwell for his off hand comment in a recent Celtics' game (the comment was so innoccuous, by the way, that it doesn't even deserve recognition).

The Radio hosts are about to blow a gasket talking about how "Blogs are a dangerous thing", and how "JoeNumbNuts.com is probably not a reliable news site".

Actually the lowest seed to win was Villanova as an 8. Kansas was a 6, I think, back in '88. And those were the "early years" of the 64-bracket.

Here's the thing. Let's say the ACC had the best 12 teams in the country. But the 12th best team went 0-16 in conference, and ended up 12-16. Would they deserve a bid? Let's say they killed everyone out of conference, but lost, properly to 11 teams better than they are. Maybe their RPI is even 12 to prove it (not likely, but whatever, play along here).

If you're clearly not in the argument for best teams in your conference, then you clearly aren't a viable choice to play for the national title. The regular season should have some weight in eliminating you from consideration.

We seed the teams specifically for this reason. Better teams get an easier path, as a reward for their seasons.

Corner, I think your only shot is to re-seed, or give lower seeds byes. How's that for an idea? The 22 seed doesn't play a first round game, but they get a tougher matchup than teams ahead of them, who don't get a bye for the first game.

On a note of my suggestion to give half of the byes to conference champs of 16 conferences.... who are these 16 teams. I'm looking it up, assuming the best team wins their conference tourney cause we can't predict otherwise.

GITC, you're the biggest Maryland homer I have ever seen...and I dated a girl who went there and was surrounded in the culture last year. ;)

I'm sorry, I keep mixing teams from last year and this year (Del St is the current automatic for the MEAC). My main thing is that it seems unnecessary to have more than the current field because the additional at-larges would all have lacking schedules, records, or be mid-majors that were upset in the conference tournament.

Doing 16 byes is a bit ludicrous when you consider that UPenn would get a bye to the second round and then a potentially great Wisconsin team would be left out. Or consider it this way: Some years, two teams from the same conference get a 1 seed because that conference is truly the best in the country and both are in the national title mix (UConn and Nova last year, for instance). How could you deny one of those teams the reward of a bye considering their stellar play and yet reward UPenn?

The Boston Herald ran this story earlier today about his on-air comments.

Basically, here was the problem:Radio commentator Cedric Maxwell will apologize for saying a female referee should “go back to the kitchen,” over the air during a Boston Celtics [team stats] game Monday night on WEEI-AM, a station official said yesterday...

“Go back to the kitchen,” Maxwell said.

That remark resulted in a moment of strained silence before Maxwell re-launched, saying “Go in there and make me some bacon and eggs, would you?”

Now, by themselves, the comments could easily be misconstrued. But the argument coming from Ordway (and others) is that is was just Max's "schtick", and that he was impersonating Tommy Heinsohn's normal blown-top whenever a ref misses a call that hurts the Celtics.

WEEI just replayed the comments, and it's 50/50 at best, in my mind. Maybe it was a Heinsohn impersonation, maybe he just slipped. But one thing's for sure - Cedric won't be getting a Tommy Point any time soon.

The only reason I brought it up was to laugh at the comments by the "mainstream guys" from the Herald/WEEI/TV talking about how dangerous the InstaWebs are becoming, how anonymity is always a bad thing...

Because newspaper/Radio/TV guys never rely on anonymous sources for their stories, right?

Big D - That is one of the reason I do not listen to WEEI that much anymore. I much prefer the Felger show on ESPN 890 and MIke and Mike in the morning over D and C, the only show I really ever listen to know his Dale and Holley. WEEI, They pretty much suck, and if you are against there agenda they shout you down. WEEI is starting to get very stale and Old to me. I think they need to shake things up.

Are you seriously considering a NCAA tourney field of 192, or 320? I mean, doesn't that render the regular season completely useless?

Think about it, if every team got in, then there's no need for the conference tourneys (which, GitC, I believe was your biggest gripe about the current situation).

If we're going that far, why not just make the entire season a double or triple elimination tournament? Then we could just institute a BCS-like system in ten years to let the computers do the thinking for us...

The system in place is good - not perfect, but nothing is. The only thing I'd like to get rid of is the damned "Play-in" game - It just reeks of "Ohhhh, they were so close... let's give them a shot anyway!" If that's the case, how does the #66 team feel now? Or #67? 68? Waste of time.

I never said anything like that. The whole D1 being in is a stupid idea. I want the good teams. All of them. Thats why I did the math. It's the whole bubble and all the conference champs plus 10 teams.

Jason-

Um, what are you reading. Ohio State and Wisconsin both get byes according to what I said.

Pay attention:32 Byes. 16 to the top conference tourney winners. 16 to the top 16 teams that didn't win their tourney.

Essentially the top 25 plus 7 more conference winners. Get the byes.

This year the best without a bye would be Air Force and the Best with a bye would be Penn although I might say they can't be eligible unless they actually play a tourney.

Big D, I think Brian is being sarcastic (at least I hope he is). And yeah, the play in game needs to go because it's unfair to mid-majors that have to be penalized with an extra game. Is it that hard to eliminate one at large?

My apologies. I still don't think it's a good idea, though. And if you can really find 10 teams that aren't even on the bubble right this moment that are worthy of being considered, I commend you, because they're not there as far as I can see.

The play-in game isn't for mid majors, it's for low majors. The dreaded "day in the sun" with a real chance to win, versus the inevitable slaughter down the road by itself.

But this could go along with my response to Corner, earlier. Let the play-in game be between the last two at-larges, for the right to be a 13 seed. The lower seeds don't have to play in, but they have to face Ohio State right away.

96 teams. 32 first round byes. 16 given to the best conference tourney champs. 16 given to the 16 best at-large teams.

96 teams involves the first weekend starting on tuesday instead of thursday and essentially becoming a week.

96 teams means that we take every team that is now considered "on the bubbble" plus 10 more teams (see math up the page).

In this format there would be the same amount of games played in the first 4 days as there are in the whole tourney as of now and we are barely watering down thet talent level because so many people think that most of the bubble teams are so close to eachother anyways.

Stop your love affair with Ryan Howard already! The guy had a great two months last year, but he's actually older than Pujols (granted, nobody knows how old Pujols *really* is), and he's not nearly as good. There's no way Howard is the "face of baseball" - he'll probably go something like .300-35-115 this year if he doesn't get hurt. Those are obviously great numbers, but not as amazing as you want him to be...plus he's slow as hell and plays crappy defense at a crappy position.

a. this year with the bubble is strange. normally the bubble is NOT this big or this close.

b. i'd still like to know what 10 teams not even on the bubble would be good enough to have a shot at the national championship.

c. let's say the ncaa were actually considering this. do you think ANYONE would seriously go for extra games? it's impractical. where would they play? at other schools? then you'd have teams potentially darting across the country for two games, missing school, and tiring everyone out. The solution would be to play games at the higher seed's home court but that takes away from the idea of neutrality that the rest of the tournament is built around. The arenas of the current first round sites don't have enough time in their schedules to play all those games on Tuesday and Wednesday (in my opinion) so what you might have to do is have uneven brackets so teams don't have to travel as far. It just doesn't work from a practical sense.

Look at the NBA and NHL where 16 teams make the playoffs. Fans of the 7 and 8th seeded teams might be excited during the first round of the playoffs but it made most of the regular season meaningless. Teams get built to just win in the postseason.

NFL and MLB have it right as far as I am concerned. Good teams make it, bad teams don't. Teams with sub .500 records shouldn't be in the playoffs. The NCAA recognized this at least with Bowl games. However I think that only 7-5 teams should be bowl eligible, 6-6 teams have no place in a bowl game.

You still play neutral.They could pull it off.Instead of having a pod be 4 teams playing 3 games in 3 days it would be 6 teams playing 5 games in 5 days.That's not to bad.Maybe arenas wouldn't be able to do 4 pods like some do. All you'd have to do is have more locations with less games.

I don't want a team that finished 7th in their conference in the dance. Adding more teams just moves the bubble. I like it better when somewhat competitive teams are the ones on the bubble, rather than adding more teams and making even worse teams the new bubble.

According to NITology (and yes, such a place exists), the new bubble for a 96 team tournament would consist of such teams as: Washington, LSU, UConn, UNI, New Mexico State, South Carolina, Saint Louis, and GW. While I'd be thrilled with the prospect of GW making the tournament (despite being absolute horseshit this year), I'm gonna have to keep saying bad idea, GITC.

I don't consider any of those teams qualified for the NCAA tournament. I'm sorry, I do see your side of the argument, but in reality, we are just letting any mediocre team into the dance. The regular season loses a lot of meaning when you do that.

Let's break those ten teams down and seriously talk about whether or not they deserve inclusion in a discussion for a shot at the National Title (because, we're not talking about a tournament for no reason. we're talking about the national title).

Nebraska - sub .500 conference record in a very poor Big XII. Lost to BAYLOR and RUTGERS. Only major NC win was against Creighton. Pathetic NC schedule. Only has 5 conference wins. Only good ones are Kansas State and Texas Tech. The other three are Colorado (which my sister's high school team could do) and Missouri twice. RPI of 77. NC SOS of 160.

Missouri - Right off the bat, those 2 losses to Nebraska stick out like a sore thumb. Again a sub .500 Conference record. Better conference games than the Huskers, but an even worse NC schedule (if that's possible) with wins over such luminaries as Stephen F. Austin. Best NC win is either Davidson or Arkansas. RPI of 76. NC SOS of 100.

New Mexico St. - I admit it's a crime that NM St. isn't going to the NCAA tournament this year barring a minor miracle in the WAC tournament but they're not that good. NC SOS of 244. RPI of 72.

Washington - Come on. Lost 4 straight. TERRIBLE conference record. With the exception of a win over Oregon, they haven't beaten anyone meaningful in 2007. RPI of 95. NC SOS of 193.

LSU - Repeat after me. 4-10 conference record. Their one win over the SEC East was against Florida. They also have a win against Texas A&M. Partially a victim of other teams underachieving, to be fair. RPI of 91. NC SOS of 93.

UCONN - Since they lost to LSU and I don't think LSU belongs in... but regardless. RPI of 100. NC SOS of 178. End of discussion.

Northern Iowa - .500 in the MVC. RPI of 75. NC SOS of 196. The MVC is a clear 7th best this year, so .500 shouldn't cut it even in a 96 team tournament. 0 big wins to stake a claim with.

South Carolina - 14-13 record overall. 4-10 in conference. I'm not even going to list the RPI or SOS. That should be enough.

Akron/Kent St. - They're in the MAC. End of discussion.

That's a stellar field right there. All of them scream "national title" and "cinderella story".

And here's the big thing. We're not discussing "Do these teams belong in a 96 team tournament?" Of course they do, since they're the 96 best teams. What we're discussing "Do these teams belong playing for the NATIONAL TITLE?" And quite frankly, other than the 65 that currently make it, there's very few that actually do belong in that discussion no matter how big of a tournament you want to consider.

And yes, 65 is pretty close to the right number of teams (64 is the best) because that offers up one team from every conference in the interest of fairness and every at-large has actually done SOMETHING to earn it other than their record and finishing over .500 in their conference.

As someone said earlier, then you'd just be shifting the bubble down. And given what you just said, two years later (or whenever Maryland next barely misses the tournament) you'd clamor for 128 to get the best 128.

It's got to stop somewhere. 64 is the place to do it, so I'm more or less happy with 65.

I agree. If you want the top 64 teams, why not get rid of anyone not in the top 64? Sorry, Ivy League champ, no tournament for you. Many of the mid majors (and all of the low majors) would have no shot at the tournament. As it is, we get the best *possible* 64 teams. Sure, there are always a few that are outside that are better than some that are in, but those are the breaks.

Connect With Me

Quickish

About This Blog

DanShanoff.com is a sports-blog spin-off of my long-time ESPN.com column, "The Daily Quickie." Anchored by an early-morning post of must-know topics, the blog is updated frequently throughout the day with new posts and user comments.